The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-05-03


/ co-ordinate departments of the Gov
eminent Of equal dignity; each Is
alike supreme in the exercise Of its
proper functions, and cannot directly
or Indirectly, while acting within the
limits Of authority, be subjected TO
the control or supervision OF the
( other, without an understandable as
sumption by that other Of the power
which, by the Constitution, Is not
! conferred upon ii. The Constitution
( appor6ons the powers of government,
but 1t does not make any one OF the
three departments subordinate TO
/ another, when exercising the trust
+ committed 70 il. The Courts may
/ declare legislative enactments uneon
Stitutional and void in some cases,
but not because the Judicial power Is
/ superior IN degree or dignity TO the
legislative, Being required TO declare
I what the law Is N the cases which
I come before them. they must enforce
I the Constitution as the paramount
I law, whenever 6 Legislative enactment
! comes IN conflict with II.
But the Courts sit, not 10 review
I or revise the legislative action, but TO
4 enforce the Legislative VIII; and 1t Is
only when they find that the legisla-
ture has failed TO keep within its con
stitutional limits, that they are at
+ liberty 10 disregard its action"
The power TO declare q law uncon-
I stitutional Is expressly given TO the
Supreme Court by Section 81 OF the
\ Civil Code.
+ Article rs Of the Constitution pre-
/ scribes that al laws heretofore en-
acted or that may hereafter be enacted,
! which are contrary TO this COnstitU-
ton shall be null and void
Article 90 Of the Constitution pre-
scribes that the decisions OF the
4 Supreme Court when made by ma
! jorlty OF the Justices thereof, shall be
final and conclusive upon all parties
But, considering the solemn and re-
I sponsible nature Of the function thus
! deyolved upon the SupremesCourt. We
I adopt the principle which prevails IN
other Courts, that the Court VIII not
I pass upon q constitutional question
I and declare q statute to be invalid
unless q decision upon that very point
becomes necessary TO the determine
ton Of the cause
= In any case where G constitutional
I question Is raised. though II may be
Y Iegitimately presented by the record,
7 vet II the record also presents some
/ other and clear ground upon which
/ the Court may rest Its judgment, and
/ thereby render the constitutional ques-
i ton immaterial to the case. the Court
I VIII take that course and leave the
( question Of constitutional power to be
I passed upon when 3 case arises which
I cannot be otherwise disposed Of and
I which consequently renders deei-
4 sion upon such question necessary"
F Cooley COnSt- Lin. D 163-
Frees vs.. Ford. 8 y. Y. III.
White vs. Scott ( Bar0., SO
+ The Court having on the second
+ point Of the appeal found that the de-
7 PENDANT III this case cannot be pun
( ished by any law now IN force for the
Z ofense Of which he Is charged wit,
+ the possession OF opium question
whether this law Is IN conflict with
( the Constitution becomes immateriaI
And It Is not proper for Us to listen
+ 10 an objection 10 the constItUtIonaIty
OF an Act by q party whose rights 1t
/ does not affect See Cooley, D 163-
! The defendant IS charged with
I specific ofense under & law which we
have held imperative against him
He cannot upon this appeal raise the
unconstitutl0nGlity Of the law IN favor
Of persons not before this Court
To illustrate 1t further The Court
would only be authorized to consider
the unconstitulonality Of the Act Of
1886, OF the ground Of It's title not IN
I Guiding preparations Of opium =
when the objection Is made BY one
who Is charged with the offense Of
having unlawful possession Of prepG
r,Eti0as Of opium
This principle was adopted by this
Court N the case Of The King vs. Vat
Sing, 3 Haw., 81, and We follow It.
Whenever person charged with
importing or selling opium contrary
to the Act, or for violating the regula-
tions said to have been made there
under, or for importing or selling
( preparations Of opium shall raise the
I question Of the colstituti0naIity Of
the Act and the decision OF this qUes-
ton Is necessary, as being the very
Us Hl0tE, this Court VIII consider It and
VIII not De at liberty to decline 50 to
do
The result Is that the Judgment OF
the lower Court must be reversed and
the defendant discharged
T. N. HATCH and P NEU1LAES for
the Crown IT DARE for defendant